Lets imagine

[barca72 440]

This was the UEFA Cup game with Israeli side Maccabi Haifa in November 2006; so under UEFA rules Rangers were responsible for anything that happens inside the ground. If memory serves he was dragged away before he managed to actually handcuff himself to the goal post. It was the fact he got on to the park that caused Rangers to be fined £4,000 but I'd rather have that than be fenced in as happens at many European grounds.

 

It's a fair point but Celtic fans have been getting away with all sorts of nonsense at Parkhead in domestic football whereas they get fined every time in Europe.

 

Strict liability means there are no excuses.

 

The problem with strict liability is that you are letting the police escape responsibility for security. If the club is dictated to by the police as to what level of police presence is required and what level of private security stewarding is required ( and the club must be since the police closed the youth cup final to the public ), then if the club is to be penalized for any breach of field security where do you expect the police presence to be required?

Apart from protecting the public, they should be protecting the players also. I remember in my day there was no need for fences since you had a line of big Glasgow bobbies patrolling the track around the pitch, sometimes a double line moving in opposite directions.

I would think that the match commander should be the person responsible for this kind of security and not the club. UEFA, by forcing all responsibility on to the club to cage the fans in by building fences, are risking another Hillsborough.

[Zappa 0]

16 team top league, play each other twice a season

 

This + scrap the play offs and just have relegation/promotion zones.

 

The way they've got it set up down south is about as close to spot-on as you can get with the league sizes, relegation, promotion and play-off structures, but having 4 top tiers in Scotland with the stupid split and small leagues they retained after their so-called 'reconstruction' is just daft.

 

I was initially a big fan of the 16 team Premiership concept for Scotland to allow for a wee winter break, but think I've probably changed my mind and would rather we just had two professional top tiers with the regional pyramid system below. With that in mind, then the obvious solutions are either an 18 team 1st tier & 24 team 2nd tier or a 20 team 1st tier & 22 team 2nd tier.

 

As for play-offs, we really should just be copying the EPL/Championship system on that front too because they've got it right.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The problem with strict liability is that you are letting the police escape responsibility for security. If the club is dictated to by the police as to what level of police presence is required and what level of private security stewarding is required ( and the club must be since the police closed the youth cup final to the public ), then if the club is to be penalized for any breach of field security where do you expect the police presence to be required?

Apart from protecting the public, they should be protecting the players also. I remember in my day there was no need for fences since you had a line of big Glasgow bobbies patrolling the track around the pitch, sometimes a double line moving in opposite directions.

I would think that the match commander should be the person responsible for this kind of security and not the club. UEFA, by forcing all responsibility on to the club to cage the fans in by building fences, are risking another Hillsborough.

 

I'm not certain about this but I don't think the police have the final say INSIDE the stadium. Certainly policing was much reduced as aresult of all-seater stadia.

 

I do know that the stewarding requirements are set by the Local Authority (Green Book) which was why Hearts got away with not even being charged when Mr Lennon was attacked at Tynecastle because they could prove that they had all the required stewards.

[barca72 440]

I'm not certain about this but I don't think the police have the final say INSIDE the stadium. Certainly policing was much reduced as aresult of all-seater stadia.

 

I do know that the stewarding requirements are set by the Local Authority (Green Book) which was why Hearts got away with not even being charged when Mr Lennon was attacked at Tynecastle because they could prove that they had all the required stewards.

 

Excuse me here BH, but are the police actions that take place inside the stadium not under the control of the match commander? Does he not decide and impart to his officers what is offensive behaviour, does he not decide where to deploy his resources. I appreciate that he requires resources outside the stadium to shepherd the crowd inside the stadium, but once the game has started he is the man and will move his resources as required.

Also, is it not the case that the police sit in on pre-game meetings to advise the club and TV companies when and how the police are prepared to distribute their resources and games are moved accordingly. If he can dictate when he wants to take control them let him take responsibility for being in control.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

1. Summer football.

2. two top tiers of 14 teams each; tiers 3 and 4 regional.

The bottom 4 of tier 1 and the top 4 of tier 2 split to form a middle tier after 30 games.

These 8 teams play for promotion/relegation.

The remaining 10 in the top tier play for title/europe and 1 automatic relegation and one play off place.

3. 2 or 3 national football academies, where kids are given the best coaching with no pressure from the clubs. The kids are then drafted into the clubs, following the US collegiate system.

[Gribz 743]

1. Summer football.

2. two top tiers of 14 teams each; tiers 3 and 4 regional.

The bottom 4 of tier 1 and the top 4 of tier 2 split to form a middle tier after 30 games.

These 8 teams play for promotion/relegation.

The remaining 10 in the top tier play for title/europe and 1 automatic relegation and one play off place.

3. 2 or 3 national football academies, where kids are given the best coaching with no pressure from the clubs. The kids are then drafted into the clubs, following the US collegiate system.

 

He nicked my summer football and league reconstruction.

 

Therefore I will through in that Id like to remove fat cats from the game and Id bring in more ex pro's into the business side. There is nothing wrong with genuine business men and women being involved in the running as they would be really needed but there would need to be a link between the running of the game and ex players / managers.

[barca72 440]

1. Summer football.

2. two top tiers of 14 teams each; tiers 3 and 4 regional.

The bottom 4 of tier 1 and the top 4 of tier 2 split to form a middle tier after 30 games.

These 8 teams play for promotion/relegation.

The remaining 10 in the top tier play for title/europe and 1 automatic relegation and one play off place.

3. 2 or 3 national football academies, where kids are given the best coaching with no pressure from the clubs. The kids are then drafted into the clubs, following the US collegiate system.

 

I agree with 1. & 2., but I would not have the US Collegiate system as I believe it leaves itself open to brown envelope-type corruption. Instead I would rather have the NHL type of progression.

This is where the kids play in amateur/junior leagues, then progress into Major Junior leagues. By this time they are around 17/18. They are then available to the professional clubs via the annual draft system.

The best thing about this draft system is that of the 30 teams in the NHL, the worst team in the standings gets first pick in the next season's draft. In this way after a few years there tends to be parity between the clubs, because each year's phenoms are spread around. In this way you tend to break up the grip of the dominant teams.

It doesn't always work out in real life the way it should in theory because teams can trade draft picks etc. but another balancing feature is that clubs have a maximum cap space. This means that all teams are only allowed a certain amount of money that they can pay out in salary, and that cap limit is the same for all teams irrespective of how big their market is.

In this way you tend to see a runaway team in one year being broken up in the next year or two because they can't legally keep all the superstars in the league because each superstar is paid too much.

Those players not picked up in the draft pick can play in non-league hockey and can at a later date be picked up by a team as a non-draft pick ( usually these are the late developers ) but are still subject to the overall team-cap limit.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I agree with 1. & 2., but I would not have the US Collegiate system as I believe it leaves itself open to brown envelope-type corruption. Instead I would rather have the NHL type of progression.

This is where the kids play in amateur/junior leagues, then progress into Major Junior leagues. By this time they are around 17/18. They are then available to the professional clubs via the annual draft system.

The best thing about this draft system is that of the 30 teams in the NHL, the worst team in the standings gets first pick in the next season's draft. In this way after a few years there tends to be parity between the clubs, because each year's phenoms are spread around. In this way you tend to break up the grip of the dominant teams.

It doesn't always work out in real life the way it should in theory because teams can trade draft picks etc. but another balancing feature is that clubs have a maximum cap space. This means that all teams are only allowed a certain amount of money that they can pay out in salary, and that cap limit is the same for all teams irrespective of how big their market is.

In this way you tend to see a runaway team in one year being broken up in the next year or two because they can't legally keep all the superstars in the league because each superstar is paid too much.

Those players not picked up in the draft pick can play in non-league hockey and can at a later date be picked up by a team as a non-draft pick ( usually these are the late developers ) but are still subject to the overall team-cap limit.

 

fair enough. I wasn't aware of the NHL system - sounds good and one that could be used here.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

He nicked my summer football and league reconstruction.

 

A great idea has many fathers

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Excuse me here BH, but are the police actions that take place inside the stadium not under the control of the match commander? Does he not decide and impart to his officers what is offensive behaviour, does he not decide where to deploy his resources. I appreciate that he requires resources outside the stadium to shepherd the crowd inside the stadium, but once the game has started he is the man and will move his resources as required.

Also, is it not the case that the police sit in on pre-game meetings to advise the club and TV companies when and how the police are prepared to distribute their resources and games are moved accordingly. If he can dictate when he wants to take control them let him take responsibility for being in control.

 

You are definitiely correct about the police being involved in the pre-game briefings and equally that the match commander has control of his forces inside the stadium. It's a minor point but as I understand it it is up to each individual officer to decide if certain conduct constitutes "offensive behaviour" within the meaning of the law, but there is no doubt that they receive guidance and may indeed be directed by a more senior officer.

 

I don't think that the TV companies are involved in the briefings but I can find out.

 

I take your point that IF the police are responsible for crowd control, why should a club be held liable; but I think the issue is that the police are only one element of crowd control; others being for example stadium design, stewarding, public announcements etc.